Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: When Is It OK To Not Give Notice?
An anonymous reader writes "Here in the U.S., 'being professional' means giving at least two week's notice when leaving a job. Is this an outmoded notion? We've all heard stories about (or perhaps experienced) a quick escort to the parking lot upon giving the normal notice, and I've never heard of a company giving a two-week notice to an employee that's being laid off or fired. A generation ago, providing a lengthy notice was required to get a glowing reference, but these days does a reference hold water any more? Once you're reached the point where you know it's time to leave, under what circumstances would you just up and walk out or give only a short notice?"
No notice is probably the biggest middle finger you can give a company and still remain within the bounds of the law.
I gave my 2 week notice last week because I have no complaints from this place and thought I should be considerate and tie up all the loose ends before I left.
If your employer isn't going to give you a positive reference, or has been negligent in their treatment of you or your fellow employees, then your two weeks notice is a privilege that they gave up.
Sig: I stole this sig.
Look, dude, if you want to walk out, then walk the fuck out. Don't look to the community to justify your behavior; obviously you're not 100% convinced that not giving notice is acceptable, otherwise you wouldn't be posting this question, now would you?
Me, I give my two weeks, regardless, because I'm better than that. If they want to let me go then and there, well, that's their prerogative. I get to keep my moral high ground by not stooping to their level.
YMMV.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
And I'm sure you extend that courtesy to the people you let go... right? Yeah didn't think so.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
If a large company is going to have a layoff they legally must give notice.
OTH, a friend of mine gave notice trying to be nice because she felt loyal to the company and was immediately fired.
Personally, I think if you give notice and they do not give you two weeks pay, then you should be able to be legally counted as fired. They can't both say you quit and ignore your two week period.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Giving notice is a way to give people time to wrap things up -- make sure your stuff is handed off to someone else if needed, start looking for a replacement, or whatever. It's done to be courteous, and to make things less troublesome for other people. I was in a small department where someone just suddenly left one day; out of the blue, email telling us he got a job he likes better and is gone now. Which sort of sucked, because we suddenly didn't have enough people for the workload, and we'd had things like vacations and whatnot planned, and everyone had to scuttle around madly making up for things with no notice, and any recovery plan (like finding a new guy) had to happen on top of suddenly dealing with this. Which sucked. If he'd given us two weeks' notice, we could have done stuff like ask him to update/annotate work in progress so we knew what was happening, and started looking for people, and had time to discuss who was rescheduling what to make up the hours.
So it's a nice thing to do, and if you don't do it, people might be mad at you. Sometimes that might be okay. Sometimes you know they'll be mad at you regardless. Sometimes you just can't deal with someone or something a day longer. In which case, well. You leave.
Think of it like any other courtesy. It's there to make things more pleasant for other people. Usually, things like that are a good strategy because they make other people like you better, which makes them more likely to help you if an opportunity to do so arises. If I run into a job that I know a bunch of my former coworkers could do, and I know a lot of people are looking for work, I might try to put some of them in touch with the prospective employer, right? Well, not the guy who ditched out without warning, obviously.
As with all social niceties, it's somewhat cultural, and somewhat role-dependent. The importance of giving notice is wildly different between, say, the sole sysadmin at a company, and one of a team of thirty junior sysadmins, none of whom ever "own" any project, but who are just going through a series of small assigned tasks which are always done or handed off by the end of the day.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
I had an employer who told me up front that if anyone called asking for a reference all they would do is say when I worked there, they would not give any information good or bad. Judging people on employers giving the second response is not fair.
As an employer, we don't give references for people who don't give two weeks' notice.
Big deal. Most HR pros will advise you not to say anything more than confirming that the person did work there and for how long and possibly in what sort of general capacity they were employed. Giving a performance review is generally considered a bad idea as it provides no benefit to the former employer but can result in lawsuits if they say the wrong thing. You can of course make exceptions if you like but mostly by not giving references you are just being petty.
It's just common courtesy.
So do you give them two weeks notice when you terminate their employment? That would be quite courteous. Or does the courtesy only get extended if it favors you?
I think if you don't give notice then it raises red flags for your new employer.
If you already have a new employer then why would it raise flags? They've already hired you and (probably) have no idea what sort of circumstances you plan to leave your old employer under unless you have informed them and that would be pretty dumb to do.
But industries are so small that why would you want to burn bridges?
Sometimes bridges are worth burning. Not a good idea as a general practice I'll concur but if someone came to me and said I'll triple your salary, you'll work with nice people and you get to work 20 hours a week I'd consider burning a few bridges for that. I've also had the "pleasure" of working for a few real douchebags and those are bridges I wouldn't mind burning either.
No notice is probably the biggest middle finger you can give a company and still remain within the bounds of the law.
I assure you it is not. There are much worse things you can do without breaking a single law. Doesn't make doing them a good idea but no notice is really barely better than 2 weeks notice. Businesses should assume people won't necessarily show up the next day because sometimes accidents happen. I've had employees suddenly get very ill and from the perspective of the operations of business that is really no different. If a company is really screwed by one person not showing up then management did a terrible job of organizing the workload and sharing important information and that is the fault of the company.
You will get no *official* reference from a supervisor at such a company. However it is usually permissible for a current or past employee of the company in question to give a *PEER* reference. You see this on LinkedIn all the time even at companies with no-formal-reference policy. Not long ago, I quit a large company with a policy like this. It led to some interesting situations, e.g. person A is fired, resume-verifiers start calling supervisor-of-person-A, he can't do anything but refer them to HR, all HR will do is confirm dates of employment. Person A contacts some former coworkers at the same company, they agree to give him a peer reference, he is hired by his new company. The reason for the no-formal-reference policy is very sensible, by the way. If Fred lists me, a former supervisor, as a reference, and HR from his potential new employer calls me in my capacity as Fred's former supervisor: if I give him a bad reference and he doesn't get hired, he can sue my employer for poisoning his career. Has happened, many times. On the other hand if I give him a good reference and he does get hired, but turns out to be a total chump/drunkard/embezzler, his new employer can sue my company for having falsely represented him. Has happened, not quite so often, but cases exist. The bottom line is that there is nothing to be gained, and real downside potential in giving someone an official reference, for any company with deep pockets. On the other hand, a peer reference ("I worked with Fred and he didn't actually steal anything or set fire to a building while I was watching") carries no liability to my employer so it's safer.
...That's why I list my employers, but my references are colleagues I've worked with.
If I like the people I work with and want them to give me a good reference then I let them know what's happening before I go to amanagement. Usually it's your soon to be ex-cowrkers who will be the ones impacted by you leaving. Treat them with respect even if you don't respect the company. If management decides to walk you out the moment you give notice, there's nothing you can do about it but at least the people you worked with have had a chance to prepare for your departure.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
If I'm the hiring person and you don't give your current employer notice then I'll assume that you are a snake and will do the same to me later, regardless of whether I would need knowledge transition at that point.
You SHOULD assume that any employee might not give you notice. Sometimes employees aren't able to give you notice because they fall ill. Sometimes they get an opportunity and have to act on it immediately. Sometimes things just don't work out between the company and the employee. Plan accordingly. I run a small manufacturing company and I assure you that two weeks notice makes little practical difference. It's certainly not enough to find and train an adequate replacement and if you cannot gracefully transition that person's work then management screwed up bad. In my case that means *I* screwed up since I'm the boss.
The two weeks notice thing is nice and courteous but if someone is leaving without prior notice the first place you should look if you want to know why is in the mirror. I've walked out of jobs without any notice and I assure you that it was because of the unprofessional behavior of those I worked for. It doesn't necessarily mean they are a "snake" but what it does mean is that you have a poor understanding of what at-will employment really means.
How sure are you that you won't ever want the old job as a reference? I've been surprised at how well some older references have worked for me.
I've been in the workforce for about 25 years now. A good reference is NEVER a company. It is a person you know. It is impossible for a company to have a personal relationship with you or to know you. It is always a close colleague or someone I had a good personal relationship with who provided the references. Whether I gave two weeks notice or not has never once been a factor.
Many years ago, I used to co-own a restaurant. A sous chef who had worked for us two years gave two weeks notice that would have him leave the day before Mothers Day for a "better opportunity". Since he was an employee in a key position, it would take longer than two weeks to interview, hire and train somone at his level. We asked if he would stay through Mothers Day (so just one more day and we'd pay him double time for that day) since we only had him and the chef (the other owner) to cook and it would place a huge burden on the chef. He declined.
It turned out that he did not have another job but just wanted to avoid working on Mothers Day (the busiest and most harrowing day in the industry). While I never gave him a bad reference (he was an excellent employee), he could not find a job in town because the kitchen staff talked about his day-before-Mothers-Day departure to their friends in other restaurants; they were pissed at him. He finally moved out of town to find employment.
MORAL: Leaving like a douchebag never pays off like you think it will.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
If they were willing to yell at you for things you didn't do, how do you know that they wouldn't have lied about you anyway had you given 2 weeks notice?
No notice is probably the biggest middle finger you can give a company and still remain within the bounds of the law.
I assure you it is not. There are much worse things you can do without breaking a single law. Doesn't make doing them a good idea but no notice is really barely better than 2 weeks notice. Businesses should assume people won't necessarily show up the next day because sometimes accidents happen. I've had employees suddenly get very ill and from the perspective of the operations of business that is really no different. If a company is really screwed by one person not showing up then management did a terrible job of organizing the workload and sharing important information and that is the fault of the company.
You, and many others here, sound like you've never worked for a small business. I assure you that for small businesses having an employee quit is often a big difficulty. It often means that others have to step in and do the work of the person who quit until that person can be replaced and the replacement is trained. Small business isn't a football team with a backup quarterback waiting on the sidelines warmed up and ready to play. The margins are tight and there isn't money for extra employees. When someone gives 2 weeks that gives a tiny bit of breathing room for the employer to begin finding someone new, and is the minimum courtesy for a professional leaving a job. Quitting and walking out without notice is appalling rude. I can't blame people for leaving if they found something better, but the way they leave is often more revealing of character than anything else.
Luckily this is something that decent people just know, and just do. If you have to ask then I hope it is because you work for a terrible employer, if not, I hope you aren't applying for a job at my office.
-- QED
I left a job, where I sometimes arrived 5-10 minutes late. But many days could find myself stuck till late evening finishing up a rush order.
If you want employees to be perfectly timely at 9-5, then it should be reciprocated. 5pm you're on your own boss. If you want to invade that personal time, then you need to be understsanding if they're a few minutes late. (The exception is life critical jobs, nurses, etc. But for most of us, that's not the case.)
The truth is, because of economic recessions and big corporate lobbying, there is an economic environment which mostly favors the employers. The fact that you are in a more powerful position, doesn't make you right in your demands. It simply means you are a tyrant.
A moral employer would say, hey, I respect you. Either by saying I want you here 9-5, and you are not obligated to be here outside of those times. OR we understand life, and the world are crazy. We expect you to normally be in by 9am. Or at least within a few minutes. But we're flexible. Likewise, there will be days when we really need your help beyond 5pm.
And we can all be mutually respectful.
I agree 100%.